What are the degrees of freedom of a quark?

[stephen weber]

TL;DR Summary

Correct?

A quark has 6 degrees of freedom.

In computer science we simplify lots of things down to arrays. Tensor equations just show the symmetries between these multidimensional arrays. And any model of a quark in our ordered world must have N degrees of freedom.

The term called Degrees of Freedom is simple enough. For example a XYZ coordinate has 3 degrees of freedom. A XY plane has 2 degrees of freedom.

Does anyone disagrees with my premise that a quark has 12 degrees of freedom technically but each one pairs off (matter and antimatter versions ) SO a quark has 6 degrees of freedom in Space.

 

[PeterDonis]

Does anyone disagrees with my premise that a quark has 12 degrees of freedom technically but each one pairs off (matter and antimatter versions ) SO a quark has 6 degrees of freedom in Space.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

 

[stephen weber]

From the possible "states" of quarks. Where would you get them from? I suppose I could write down all of the summation of one page of what a quark is, but I don't want to disagree with any fact and should I type all of that (EX...+- one third spin ), I probably will type one number wrong and half of you would just walk away.

SO. For others that do not know what a quark is. I copied the wiki of properties.Quark flavor properties[78]

Name	Symbol	Name	Symbol
Particle	Mass (MeV/c2)*	J	B	Q (e)	I3	C	S	T	B′	Antiparticle
First generation
up	u	2.3±0.7 ± 0.5	1⁄2	+1⁄3	+2⁄3	+1⁄2	0	0	0	0	antiup	u
down	d	4.8±0.5 ± 0.3	1⁄2	+1⁄3	−1⁄3	−1⁄2	0	0	0	0	antidown	d
Second generation
charm	c	1275±25	1⁄2	+1⁄3	+2⁄3	0	+1	0	0	0	anticharm	c
strange	s	95±5	1⁄2	+1⁄3	−1⁄3	0	0	−1	0	0	antistrange	s
Third generation
top	t	173210±510 ± 710	1⁄2	+1⁄3	+2⁄3	0	0	0	+1	0	antitop	t
bottom	b	4180±30	1⁄2	+1⁄3	−1⁄3	0	0	0	0	−1	antibottom	b

J = total angular momentum, B = baryon number, Q = electric charge, I3 = isospin, C = charm, S = strangeness, T = topness, B′ = bottomness.
* Notation such as 173210±510 ± 710 denotes two types of measurement uncertainty. In the case of the top quark, the first uncertainty is statistical in nature, and the second is systematic.

 

[stephen weber]

In the real world, our experiments , whatever is used, bubbles, photographic, all the data ever is is some point which we can follow which under the same situation follows some path through time which reduces to certain reoccurring patterns, such as believing charge caused the motion.
All of this data is dimensional of course and after years of the same patterns forming they argue that we have found all states that a quark can be in. (and we get lovely terms to describe these reoccuring patterns)

I would like to know if anyone has an objection to just sighing and agreeing and saying at an axiomatic level. A quark has 6 degrees of freedom. (IN THIS UNIVERSE PLEASE). Or is it still up in the air like Peter Donis implies by asking me where are the numbers I use? Personally I hope most people are well on their way to believing that is an axiom.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I probably will type one number wrong and half of you would just walk away.

You might wait for us to actually do what you don't like before complaining about it. Just sayin'.

Or is it still up in the air like Peter Donis implies by asking me where are the numbers I use?

Another possibility (one that happens to be correct) is that you have not asked a clear question. ("How many sides does a polygon have - IN THIS UNIVERSE!)

Personally I hope most people are well on their way to believing that is an axiom.

Sounds like you aren't asking a question at all in this thread.,

 

[stephen weber]

Really?

Seems like a valid question.

No one yet just agrees to the fact that it is an axiom.

I can see understand now how Vanadium can write that I replied to Peter as a complaint, BUT...
I put "For others that .." and posted numbers for Peter Donus question.
Peter clearly is the mentor of this thread so his/(her) job is to make sure my question is understandable to everyone. Obviously HE knows the numbers so i put "others". My motivation for my subsequent post was to open up my question to a simpliler question which leaves out the DIRECT implication that this should (since we found the TOP quark) be an axiom to start with, not just some hypothesis that started 100 years ago and led to multiple sites around the world (such as SLAC where they spend $1000000 a day) to find THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. The first step of course is to nail down what is axiomatic.

If I asked if a polygon was always six sided as Vanadium replied then I can infer from V (again assuming ONLY that that post of his is absolutely not sarcasm) that his answer is that the value of 6 is just one of an infinite possibility for quarks. Which is in disagreement with my question. So V it is a question, and at the moment in a court room where I want a simple axiomatic answer honestly from anyone that wants to claim they understand physics to the question, you are voting it down. Or would you like to update your answer to "Yes, Quarks axiomatically can only be in one of six states or as I phrased it originally, (WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH) Quarks have six degrees of freedom.

 

[PeterDonis]

From the possible "states" of quarks.

And what do you think those states are?

I copied the wiki of properties.

How do we get from the numbers in this table to the numbers you gave in the OP?

 

[PeterDonis]

For others that do not know what a quark is.

This is an "I" level thread; knowledge of what a quark is is assumed for anyone who participates.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would like to know if anyone has an objection to just sighing and agreeing and saying at an axiomatic level. A quark has 6 degrees of freedom.

Nobody is going to "agree" to anything until you explain where you are getting your numbers from.

No one yet just agrees to the fact that it is an axiom.

Oh, if that's what you want people to "agree" to, then the answer is easy: no, it isn't an axiom. There is no axiom in the Standard Model of particle physics that says "a quark has 6 degrees of freedom in Space".

Does that mean I can close this thread now?

 

[PeterDonis]

Or is it still up in the air like Peter Donis implies by asking me where are the numbers I use?

I didn't ask you where you are getting your numbers from because I don't know what quarks are or what their properties are. I asked you where you are getting your numbers from because until you explain that, your question is not well-defined, and we don't give answer to vague, ill-defined questions here. You need to do the work of asking a well-defined question that has a well-defined answer.

You have asked one well-defined question (the "axiom" one), and I have answered that one.

 

[stephen weber]

(Apologies as I am not sure now the order of these posts)Ok I am on my first post. My GOAL THROUGH THE COURSE OF TIME and probably thousands of posts : IS I would like to present a model for cosmology which I only have taken so far as to be able to clearly see mathematically that it agrees with the total number of STABLE elements (or if I am not communicating what I am inferring here lead 208 is the heaviest stable element.) As well as everything known up to that level.

So if I asked THIS question,
"Has anyone ever mathematically shown a proof for the number of possible stable elements?"

All I see is that regardless of the answer you provide, it comes off as a high school level question... And not a good beginning.

And I need to know if the physics community is capable of accepting this statement as an axiom, because that is my assumption which leds to my model

 

[stephen weber]

Peter .
Perhaps I should start a new thread, but just to be clear , you are in agreement with me if I say that TODAY, the world has only six known possible states for quarks.

 

[stephen weber]

Or semantically for me even better if you are in agreement with me if I write that TODAY, the world has only found six degrees of freedom for the quark.

 

[stephen weber]

An aside.

Specifically about where I am at. If one was to collect all known data on how many DIFFERENT atoms can exist governed by the parameter of N nucleons, the number must be no more than 208 from lead-208, with the caveat that no one has found any at 5 and 8 nucleons. So currently the number of different atoms that occur in my model can be seen at 206.
Under this circumstance does not my question seem relevant ?

 

[Dale]

I would like to present a model for cosmology
...
I need to know if the physics community is capable of accepting this statement as an axiom, because that is my assumption which leds to my model

I think that you misunderstand both the process of doing science and the purpose of this forum.

First, you do not need to get our consent to propose a theory where you propose as an axiom that the quark has 6 DOF. You simply propose it. It is your theory and you are free to base it on whatever axioms you like. All that matters is that your predictions follow rigorously from your axioms and that those predictions match current theories in their experimentally validated domains and predict different results outside their experimentally validated domains.

Second, we don’t do any sort of pre-publication support here. We don’t proofread unpublished papers or critique unpublished theories. If you want to discuss your theory here you must publish it in the professional scientific literature first.

Thread closed